IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11450 of 2006(K)
1. M.SIVASANAKARA PILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE DEFENCE
... Respondent
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR ECHS (EX-SERVICEMEN
3. THE STATION COMMANDER, STATION HEAD
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, ECHS POLY CLINIC,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASGI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :23/07/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
======================================
W.P.(C)No.11450 of 2006
======================================
Dated this the 23rd day of July 2008
The petitioner is an ex-service man. He retired from the Indian
Army on 31.12.1982. The petitioner was empanelled as a member of
the Ex-service men Contributory Health Scheme introduced by the
defence department of the Government of India on 20.4.2005. On the
very same day, he reported sick in the Polyclinic at INS Sanjeevani in the
Cochin Naval Base. On 23.4.2005, he was admitted as an inpatient in
the Amritha Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Kochi. He
underwent heart surgery on 25.4.2005 and was discharged from the
hospital on 3.5.2005. At that time Amritha Institute of Medical Science
and Research Centre was not included in the list of empanelled hospitals
approved by the Ex-service men Contributory Health Scheme. However,
on 4.5.2005 the said hospital was included in the list of empanelled
hospitals. The petitioner thereafter made a claim for re-imbursement of
the expenses incurred by him at Amrita Institute of Medical Science and
Research Centre, Kochi. By Ext.P15, the said request was turned down
on the ground that the facilities for surgery undergone by the petitioner
existed in the Lisie Hospital, Kochi and that he opted for a non-
empanelled hospital in spite of the facilities available in the Lisie
Hospital without there being any reason for availing emergency medical
care. It is also stated that the petitioner had, on 12.4.2005, undergone a
W.P.(C)11450/2006 2
check up at the Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research
Centre, Kochi and on finding that he is suffering from a Coronary Artery
disease became a member of the scheme and reported the very same
day at INS Sanjeevani.
2. I have heard Sri.R.Pushpangathan Pillai, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.S.Biju, the Additional Central
Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the Amrita Institute
of Medical Science and Research Centre was included in the list of
empanelled hospitals on 4.5.2005, the petitioner being a member of the
scheme, the stand taken in Ext.P15 is not tenable. The learned counsel
for the petitioner also contended that as the respondents have no case in
Ext.P15 that the petitioner had incurred extra expenditure in a non-
empanelled hospital, the stand taken in Ext.P15 is not tenable. Per
contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended
that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to any relief under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondents
brought to my notice that the petitioner had prior to becoming a
member of the scheme, taken treatment at Amrita Institute of Medical
Science and Research Centre and on being diagnosed as suffering from
heart disease became a member of the scheme. Lastly, the learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that in any view of the matter, the
petitioner cannot claim expenses incurred prior to 20.4.2005.
W.P.(C)11450/2006 3
3. I have considered the submissions made at the bar by the
counsel appearing on either side. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is
a pensioner drawing a monthly pension of Rs.3461/-. It is also not in
dispute that he was admitted as a member of the scheme on 20.4.2005.
It is also not in dispute that the day after the petitioner was discharged
from Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, that
hospital was included in the list of empanelled hospitals. Having regard
to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the
absence of a plea that the petitioner had incurred extra expenditure by
undergoing treatment in the Amrita Institute of Medical Science and
Research Centre, I deem it fit and proper to direct the respondents to
re-imburse the expenses incurred by him for the surgery that he
underwent on 25.4.2005 at the said hosptial. The petitioner shall, if he
has not already done so, submit to the second respondent
authenticated receipts evidencing payment of the bills issued from the
Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Kochi for the
period from 23.4.2005 to 3.5.2005. On the petitioner furnishing the
above details, the second respondent shall re-imburse the actual
expenses incurred by the petitioner within two months thereafter.
The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
css/
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+CRP.No. 207 of 2008()
#1. THIRUMANGALATH MADHAVAN NAMBOODIRI,
… Petitioner
Vs
$1. KOLOTH K.SURESH, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,
… Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
^ For Respondent :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
*Coram
The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
% Dated :25/07/2008
: O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
——————————-
C.R.P.Nos.199 & 207 of 2008
——————————-
Dated this the 18th August, 2008.
O R D E R
As cost paid, revision petitions stand allowed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.